Ratheesh @ Kara Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala & Anr

Leave granted.

We are informed by the Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has since surrendered. The appellant was sentenced under sections 307,324/34

IPC. The High Court in appeal, suspended the sentence on 21.03.2018. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall not get involved in any other

offence.

Subsequently two FIR’s have been lodged against the appellant on 10.07.2019 and 25.05.2020 under sections 143,147,283/149 and 143, 144, 147,

148, 153A, 454, 380, 427/149 IPC respectively.Â

Consequently, the High Court by the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 has cancelled the bail granted to the appellant opining that the appellant had

misused the liberty of bail granted to him.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Opposing the appeal, Learned Counsel for the state submitted that the appellant having breached one

of the conditions for suspension of the sentence, by being involved in two subsequent cases, the impugned order calls for no interference. He also

invited our attention to the antecedents of the appellant.

The High Court, after noticing the antecedents has eschewed the same for purposes of the impugned order, relying only on breach of condition.

The grant or refusal of bail concerns the liberty of the citizen. Though the jurisdiction is discretionary, it calls for a judicious exercise. The Courts

have to be more circumspect while dealing with an application for cancellation of bail as the immediate consequence is the curtailment of liberty.

The two FIR’s concern the participation of the appellant as member of a political outfit, in a public protest blocking the road and obstructing a film

shooting in the temple premises causing financial loss to the film production company and the temple.

The sentence was suspended by the High Court by a reasoned order even while declining the benefit to a co-accused for specified reasons. The

appellant is not alleged to have involved himself in any offence of a similar or like nature, threatened or assaulted any witness involved. The condition

imposed by the High Court was sweeping in its nature and ambit. We are not convinced that the discretion to cancel the bail, affecting the liberty of

the citizen, has been exercised in a judicious manner in the present facts and circumstances.

We therefore set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 21.03.2018 granting bail to the appellant.

The appeal is allowed.